LOGO
Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 10-05-2011, 01:40 PM   #1
Seeseeskeva

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default Talmudic Quotes on non-Jews.


The Jewish worldpoint, their tribalism and their contempt for followers of others religions and denizens of other races can be better understood by taking a look at some of the quotes from the Talmud describing the gentiles or goys. Wa salam.

http://shiningblades.blogspot.com/20...-non-jews.html

Seeseeskeva is offline


Old 10-05-2011, 02:07 PM   #2
sam

Join Date
Oct 2005
Age
44
Posts
517
Senior Member
Default


The Jewish worldpoint, their tribalism and their contempt for followers of others religions and denizens of other races can be better understood by taking a look at some of the quotes from the Talmud describing the gentiles or goys. Wa salam.

http://shiningblades.blogspot.com/20...-non-jews.html

Salam alikum,
- I can not believe it!

now it gives more sense what some jews are saying and how they behave.
I secretly wish that it is some misconception oar taking out of context .... but - probably this is not the case as it is so clearly stated!!!

w salam
sam is offline


Old 10-05-2011, 03:22 PM   #3
Seeseeskeva

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
Salam alikum,
- I can not believe it!

w salam

Welcome to the club. You should read some of the stuff that their rabbis say. Disgusting.
Seeseeskeva is offline


Old 10-05-2011, 11:47 PM   #4
MgpojuWy

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
445
Senior Member
Default
Bismillah
I think there is more to the list.
I read also that they dont have to pay the dept if they borrow the money from non-jew and so on. Allahu alam. Whatever, we can think how it will influence the one who tries to be more jewish trying to follow the scripture which they wrote with their own hands.
MgpojuWy is offline


Old 10-06-2011, 12:28 AM   #5
MgpojuWy

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
445
Senior Member
Default
Bismillah
Money and Property

(1) Gifts. The Talmud bluntly forbids giving a gift to a Gentile. However, classical rabbinical authorities bent this rule because it is customary among businessmen to give gifts to business contacts. It was therefore laid down that a Jew may give a gift to a Gentile acquaintance, since this is regarded not as a true gift but as a sort of investment, for which some return is expected. Gifts to 'unfamiliar Gentiles' remain forbidden. A broadly similar rule applies to almsgiving. Giving alms to a Jewish beggar is an important religious duty. Alms to Gentile beggars are merely permitted for the sake of peace. However there are numerous rabbinical warnings against allowing the Gentile poor to become 'accustomed' to receiving alms from Jews, so that it should be possible to withhold such alms without arousing undue hostility.

(2) Taking of interest. Anti-Gentile discrimination in this matter has become largely theoretical, in view of the dispensation (explained in Chapter 3) which in effect allows interest to be exacted even from a Jewish borrower. However, it is still the case that granting an interest-free loan to a Jew is recommended as an act of charity, but from a Gentile borrower it is mandatory to exact interest. In fact, many - though not all - rabbinical authorities, including Maimonides, consider it mandatory to exact as much usury as possible on a loan to a Gentile.

(3) Lost property. If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is Jewish, the finder is strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return his find by advertising it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical authorities not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost by a Gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it.48 In more recent times, when laws were passed in most countries making it mandatory to return lost articles, the rabbinical authorities instructed Jews to do what these laws say, as an act of civil obedience to the state - but not as a religious duty, that is without making a positive effort to discover the owner if it is not probable that he is Jewish.

(4) Deception in business. It is a grave sin to practice any kind of deception whatsoever against a Jew. Against a Gentile it is only forbidden to practice direct deception. Indirect deception is allowed, unless it is likely to cause hostility towards Jews or insult to the Jewish religion. The paradigmatic example is mistaken calculation of the price during purchase. If a Jew makes a mistake unfavorable to himself, it is one's religious duty to correct him. If a Gentile is spotted making such a mistake, one need not let him know about it, but say 'I rely on your calculation', so as to forestall his hostility in case he subsequently discovers his own mistake.

(5) Fraud. It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling or buying at an unreasonable price. However, 'Fraud does not apply to Gentiles, for it is written: "Do not defraud each man his brother";49 but a Gentile who defrauds a Jew should be compelled to make good the fraud, but should not be punished more severely than a Jew [in a similar case].'50

(6) Theft and robbery. Stealing (without violence) is absolutely forbidden - as the Shulhan 'Arukh so nicely puts it: 'even from a Gentile'. Robbery (with violence) is strictly forbidden if the victim is Jewish. However, robbery of a Gentile by a Jew is not forbidden outright but only under certain circumstances such as 'when the Gentiles are not under our rule', but is permitted 'when they are under our rule'. Rabbinical authorities differ among themselves as to the precise details of the circumstances under which a Jew may rob a Gentile, but the whole debate is concerned only with the relative power of Jews and Gentiles rather than with universal considerations of justice and humanity. This may explain why so very few rabbis have protested against the robbery of Palestinian property in Israel: it was backed by overwhelming Jewish power.
MgpojuWy is offline


Old 10-06-2011, 12:36 AM   #6
MgpojuWy

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
445
Senior Member
Default
Bismillah
Murder and Genocide

ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH religion, the murder of a Jew is a capital offense and one of the three most heinous sins (the other two being idolatry and adultery). Jewish religious courts and secular authorities are commanded to punish, even beyond the limits of the ordinary administration of justice, anyone guilty of murdering a Jew. A Jew who indirectly causes the death of another Jew is, however, only guilty of what talmudic law calls a sin against the 'laws of Heaven', to be punished by God rather than by man.

When the victim is a Gentile, the position is quite different. A Jew who murders a Gentile is guilty only of a sin against the laws of Heaven, not punishable by a court.1 To cause indirectly the death of a Gentile is no sin at all.2

Thus, one of the two most important commentators on the Shulhan Arukh explains that when it comes to a Gentile, 'one must not lift one's hand to harm him, but one may harm him indirectly, for instance by removing a ladder after he had fallen into a crevice .., there is no prohibition here, because it was not done directly:3 He points out, however, that an act leading indirectly to a Gentile's death is forbidden if it may cause the spread of hostility towards Jews.4

A Gentile murderer who happens to be under Jewish jurisdiction must be executed whether the victim was Jewish or not. However, if the victim was Gentile and the murderer converts to Judaism, he is not punished.5

All this has a direct and practical relevance to the realities of the State of Israel. Although the state's criminal laws make no distinction between Jew and Gentile, such distinction is certainly made by Orthodox rabbis, who in guiding their flock follow the Halakhah. Of special importance is the advice they give to religious soldiers.

Since even the minimal interdiction against murdering a Gentile outright applies only to 'Gentiles with whom we [the Jews] are not at war', various rabbinical commentators in the past drew the logical conclusion that in wartime all Gentiles belonging to a hostile population may, or even should be killed.6 Since 1973 this doctrine is being publicly propagated for the guidance of religious Israeli soldiers. The first such official exhortation was included in a booklet published by the Central Region Command of the Israeli Army, whose area includes the West Bank. In this booklet the Command's Chief Chaplain writes:

When our forces come across civilians during a war or in hot pursuit or in a raid, so long as there is no certainty that those civilians are incapable of harming our forces, then according to the Halakhah they may and even should be killed ... Under no circumstances should an Arab be trusted, even if he makes an impression of being civilized ... In war, when our forces storm the enemy, they are allowed and even enjoined by the Halakhah to kill even good civilians, that is, civilians who are ostensibly good.7

The same doctrine is expounded in the following exchange of letters between a young Israeli soldier and his rabbi, published in the yearbook of one of the country's most prestigious religious colleges, Midrashiyyat No'am, where many leaders and activists of the National Religious Party and Gush Emunim have been educated.8

Letter from the soldier Moshe to Rabbi Sbipn 'on Weiser '

With God's help, to His Honor, my dear Rabbi,

'First I would like to ask how you and your family are. I hope all is well. I am, thank God, feeling well. A long time I have not written. Please forgive me. Sometimes I recall the verse "when shall I come and appear before God?'9 I hope, without being certain, that I shall come during one of the leaves. I must do so.

'In one of the discussions in our group, there was a debate about the "purity of weapons" and we discussed whether it is permitted to kill unarmed men - or women and children? Or perhaps we should take revenge on the Arabs? And then everyone answered according to his own understanding. I could not arrive at a clear decision, whether Arabs should be treated like the Amalekites, meaning that one is permitted to murder [sic ] them until their remembrance is blotted out from under heaven,10 or perhaps one should do as in a just war, in which one kills only the soldiers?

'A second problem I have is whether I am permitted to put myself in danger by allowing a woman to stay alive? For there have been cases when women threw hand grenades. Or am I permitted to give water to an Arab who put his hand up? For there may be reason to fear that he only means to deceive me and will kill me, and such things have happened.

'I conclude with a warm greeting to the rabbi and all his family. - Moshe.'

Reply of Shim'on Weiser' to Moshe

'With the help of Heaven. Dear Moshe, Greetings.

'I am starting this letter this evening although I know I cannot finish it this evening, both because I am busy and because I would like to make it a long letter, to answer your questions in full, for which purpose I shall have to copy out some of the sayings of our sages, of blessed memory, and interpret them.11

'The non-Jewish nations have a custom according to which war has its own rules, like those of a game, like the rules of football or basketball. But according to the sayings of our sages, of blessed memory, [ ... ] war for us is not a game but a vital necessity, and only by this standard must we decide how to wage it. On the one hand .... ] we seem to learn that if a Jew murders a Gentile, he is regarded as a murderer and, except for the fact that no court has the right to punish him, the gravity of the deed is like that of any other murder. But we find in the very same authorities in another place [ ... that Rabbi Shim'on used to say: "The best of Gentiles - kill him; the best of snakes dash out its brains."

'It might perhaps be argued that the expression "kill" in the saying of R. Shim'on is only figurative and should not be taken literally but as meaning "oppress" or some similar attitude, and in this way we also avoid a contradiction with the authorities quoted earlier. Or one might argue that this saying, though meant literally, is [merely] his own personal opinion, disputed by other sages [quoted earlier]. But we find the true explanation in the Tosalot.12 There [ .... ] we learn the following comment on the talmudic pronouncement that Gentiles who fall into a well should not be helped out, but neither should they be pushed into the well to be killed, which means that they should neither be saved from death nor killed directly. And the Tosafot write as follows:

"And if it is queried [because] in another place it was said The best of Gentiles - kill him, then the answer is that this [saying] is meant for wartime." [ ... ]

'According to the commentators of the Tosafot, a distinction must be made between wartime and peace, so that although during peace time it is forbidden to kill Gentiles, in a case that occurs in wartime it is a mitzvah [imperative, religious duty] to kill them.[...]

'And this is the difference between a Jew and a Gentile: although the rule "Whoever comes to kill you, kill him first" applies to a Jew, as was said in Tractate Sanhedrin [of the Talmud], page 72a, still it only applies to him if there is [actual] ground to fear that he is coming to kill you. But a Gentile during wartime is usually to be presumed so, except when it is quite clear that he has no evil intent. This is the rule of "purity of weapons" according to the Halakhah - and not the alien conception which is now accepted in the Israeli army and which has been the cause of many [Jewish] casualties. I enclose a newspaper cutting with the speech made last week in the Knesset by Rabbi Kalman Kahana, which shows in a very lifelike - and also painful - way how this "purity of weapons" has caused deaths.

'I conclude here, hoping that you will not find the length of this letter irksome. This subject was being discussed even without your letter, but your letter caused me to write up the whole matter.

'Be in peace, you and all Jews, and [I hope to] see you soon, as you say. Yours - Shim'on.

Reply of Moshe to R. Shim'on Weiser

'To His Honor, my dear Rabbi,

'First I hope that you and your family are in health and are all right.

'I have received your long letter and am grateful for your personal watch over me, for I assume that you write to many, and most of your time is taken up with your studies in your own program.

'Therefore my thanks to you are doubly deep.

'As for the letter itself, I have understood it as follows:

'In wartime I am not merely permitted, but enjoined to kill every Arab man and woman whom I chance upon, if there is reason to fear that they help in the war against us, directly or indirectly. And as far as I am concerned I have to kill them even if that might result in an involvement with the military law. I think that this matter of the purity of weapons should be transmitted to educational institutions, at least the religious ones, so that they should have a position about this subject and so that they will not wander in the broad fields of "logic", especially on this subject; and the rule has to be explained as it should be followed in practice. For, I am sorry to say, I have seen different types of "logic" here even among the religious comrades. I do hope that you shall be active in this, so that our boys will know the line of their ancestors clearly and unambiguously.

'I conclude here, hoping that when the [training] course ends, in about a month, I shall be able to come to the yeshivah [talmudic college]. Greetings - Moshe.'

Of course, this doctrine of the Halakhah on murder clashes, in principle, not only with Israel's criminal law but also - as hinted in the letters just quoted - with official military standing regulations. However, there can be little doubt that in practice this doctrine does exert an influence on the administration of justice, especially by military authorities. The fact is that in all cases where Jews have, in a military or paramilitary context, murdered Arab non-combatants - including cases of mass murder such as that in Kafr Qasim in 1956 - the murderers, if not let off altogether, received extremely light sentences or won far-reaching remissions, reducing their punishment to next to nothing.13
MgpojuWy is offline


Old 10-07-2011, 02:09 PM   #7
Seeseeskeva

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
There is also a book called 'Tanya' which is the fundamental text of the Chabad movement(one of the most active in Judaism all over the world).This book says that the Jewish soul has a divine spark and in infinitely superior than the soul of a wretched goy,which is like an animal's one.
Yes, I read that. The souls of non Jews are evil, animal souls according to their rabbis.
Seeseeskeva is offline


Old 10-08-2011, 01:03 PM   #8
Seeseeskeva

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
Bismillah
Money and Property

(1) Gifts. The Talmud bluntly forbids giving a gift to a Gentile. However, classical rabbinical authorities bent this rule because it is customary among businessmen to give gifts to business contacts. It was therefore laid down that a Jew may give a gift to a Gentile acquaintance, since this is regarded not as a true gift but as a sort of investment, for which some return is expected. Gifts to 'unfamiliar Gentiles' remain forbidden. A broadly similar rule applies to almsgiving. Giving alms to a Jewish beggar is an important religious duty. Alms to Gentile beggars are merely permitted for the sake of peace. However there are numerous rabbinical warnings against allowing the Gentile poor to become 'accustomed' to receiving alms from Jews, so that it should be possible to withhold such alms without arousing undue hostility.

(2) Taking of interest. Anti-Gentile discrimination in this matter has become largely theoretical, in view of the dispensation (explained in Chapter 3) which in effect allows interest to be exacted even from a Jewish borrower. However, it is still the case that granting an interest-free loan to a Jew is recommended as an act of charity, but from a Gentile borrower it is mandatory to exact interest. In fact, many - though not all - rabbinical authorities, including Maimonides, consider it mandatory to exact as much usury as possible on a loan to a Gentile.

(3) Lost property. If a Jew finds property whose probable owner is Jewish, the finder is strictly enjoined to make a positive effort to return his find by advertising it publicly. In contrast, the Talmud and all the early rabbinical authorities not only allow a Jewish finder to appropriate an article lost by a Gentile, but actually forbid him or her to return it.48 In more recent times, when laws were passed in most countries making it mandatory to return lost articles, the rabbinical authorities instructed Jews to do what these laws say, as an act of civil obedience to the state - but not as a religious duty, that is without making a positive effort to discover the owner if it is not probable that he is Jewish.

(4) Deception in business. It is a grave sin to practice any kind of deception whatsoever against a Jew. Against a Gentile it is only forbidden to practice direct deception. Indirect deception is allowed, unless it is likely to cause hostility towards Jews or insult to the Jewish religion. The paradigmatic example is mistaken calculation of the price during purchase. If a Jew makes a mistake unfavorable to himself, it is one's religious duty to correct him. If a Gentile is spotted making such a mistake, one need not let him know about it, but say 'I rely on your calculation', so as to forestall his hostility in case he subsequently discovers his own mistake.

(5) Fraud. It is forbidden to defraud a Jew by selling or buying at an unreasonable price. However, 'Fraud does not apply to Gentiles, for it is written: "Do not defraud each man his brother";49 but a Gentile who defrauds a Jew should be compelled to make good the fraud, but should not be punished more severely than a Jew [in a similar case].'50

(6) Theft and robbery. Stealing (without violence) is absolutely forbidden - as the Shulhan 'Arukh so nicely puts it: 'even from a Gentile'. Robbery (with violence) is strictly forbidden if the victim is Jewish. However, robbery of a Gentile by a Jew is not forbidden outright but only under certain circumstances such as 'when the Gentiles are not under our rule', but is permitted 'when they are under our rule'. Rabbinical authorities differ among themselves as to the precise details of the circumstances under which a Jew may rob a Gentile, but the whole debate is concerned only with the relative power of Jews and Gentiles rather than with universal considerations of justice and humanity. This may explain why so very few rabbis have protested against the robbery of Palestinian property in Israel: it was backed by overwhelming Jewish power.
Nowadays, I wonder more and more how someone can be stupid enough to be jewish.
Seeseeskeva is offline


Old 10-09-2011, 10:32 PM   #9
Seeseeskeva

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
As a matter of fact,very few people convert to Judaism because of the extreme reluctance by rabbis to perform conversion and also because Judaism is all about legalistic rituals and totally lacks a spiritual dimension.What is important for being a good Jew is performing their commandments with all the details attached to them;but Judaism does NOT have an akeedah and some rabbis even say that you are not obligated to actually believe in God as long as you are observant(i.e. putting your right shoe on first,not carrying a pen on shabat,searching bugs in the vegetables you're gonna eat,ecc.)
As Shaykh A Hakim said, Juda-yi Ism: the absolutizing of a people.

Edom: the absolutizing of a person.

Islam: the absolutizing of God.
Seeseeskeva is offline


Old 10-10-2011, 02:54 PM   #10
Seeseeskeva

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
Sanhedrin 59a

To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.
Seeseeskeva is offline


Old 10-11-2011, 01:38 AM   #11
jakitula

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
457
Senior Member
Default
Sanhedrin 59a

To communicate anything to a Goy about our religious relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what we teach about them, they would kill us openly.
Interesting thread it reminds me a bit of Evangelical Christians trying to demonize Muslims by making up own Ahadeeth or taking them out of context or wich happens quite often they dont research the material they are posting the alleged quotations from the Talmud are fabrications mainly spread by Neo Nazi's and certain branches of Christendom.
jakitula is offline


Old 10-11-2011, 01:08 PM   #12
Seeseeskeva

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
Interesting thread it reminds me a bit of Evangelical Christians trying to demonize Muslims by making up own Ahadeeth or taking them out of context or wich happens quite often they dont research the material they are posting the alleged quotations from the Talmud are fabrications mainly spread by Neo Nazi's and certain branches of Christendom.

Here is the explanation given by a website for the defence of the Talmud with reference to this quote:

"Talmud Sanhedrin 59a:
Rabbi Yochanan said: A gentile who studies Torah is liable for death as it says (Deuteronomy 33:4) "Moses commanded us Torah as a heritage." It is a heritage for us and not for them... Rabbi Meir would say: How do we know that even a gentile who engages in the study of Torah is like a Jewish high priest? As it says (Leviticus 18:5) "Which man shall do [i.e. study] and by which he shall live [in the afterlife]." It does not say "priests, Levites, and Israelites" but "man". We learn from here that even a gentile who engages in the study of Torah is like a Jewish high priest. [We answer the contradiction between Rabbi Yochanan's statement and Rabbi Meir's that] there [Rabbi Meir] is referring to their seven commandments.

The Talmud provides a contradiction between two statements regarding whether a gentile is allowed to study Torah. The accusation only quotes one side and does not provide the resolution. By seeing the whole text and the resolution we can better understand the Talmud's intent.

What the accusation also does not quote is the passage immediately preceding ours. The Talmud states that it is forbidden for a gentile to fully observe the Jewish Sabbath and holidays. While this does not seem as conspiratorial as the prohibition against studying Torah it is still curious. Why should it be? The explanation is tied to the Talmud's resolution to the contradiction between Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Meir. The Talmud concludes that both rabbis agree but one was stating that a gentile is forbidden to study the parts of Torah that discuss the commandments relating specifically to Jews and the other was stating that a gentile is highly praised for studying the parts of Torah that discuss the commandments that relate to him. In other words, a gentile should be concerned with his role in G-d's world. He should actively pursue his place in the divine plan and attempt to raise himself to the highest human levels. However, as a righteous gentile, he must confine himself to HIS role and not someone else's role. When he starts studying about Jewish commandments and observing Jewish holidays, he is stepping out of his role as a righteous gentile and entering the role of a Jew. This is as inappropriate as if a Jew would start acting in the role of a righteous gentile. We all have our roles in the world and it is wrong to try to side-step those roles. A gentile can become a Jew through conversion but a righteous gentile is righteous in his own right and is forbidden to try to over-step his role."

Tell me if it makes any sense.
Seeseeskeva is offline


Old 10-15-2011, 01:18 PM   #13
Seeseeskeva

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
Rabbi Yitzhak Ginsburg declared, "We have to recognize that Jewish blood and the blood of a goy are not the same thing." (NY Times, June 6, 1989, p.5).
Seeseeskeva is offline


Old 10-17-2011, 01:43 PM   #14
Seeseeskeva

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
Libbre David 37

A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them.
Seeseeskeva is offline


Old 10-17-2011, 10:40 PM   #15
jakitula

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
457
Senior Member
Default
Libbre David 37

A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them.
Libbre David 37 seems to be either obscure or a hoax.

See:
While it is possible that the book Libbre David existed I have not been able to find it, even with the help of a librarian from Yeshiva University's Gottesman Library. It was certainly never a mainstream book. In fact, it is strictly prohibited to lie about the contents of the Talmud.http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/lie.html
jakitula is offline


Old 10-18-2011, 01:05 PM   #16
Seeseeskeva

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
Libbre David 37 seems to be either obscure or a hoax.

See:
While it is possible that the book Libbre David existed I have not been able to find it, even with the help of a librarian from Yeshiva University's Gottesman Library. It was certainly never a mainstream book. In fact, it is strictly prohibited to lie about the contents of the Talmud.http://www.angelfire.com/mt/talmud/lie.html
Maybe. But that is the opinion of a student. And he does not deny the possibility of the book's existence, just his ability to trace it.
In Zohar (I, 160a) it says:
"Rabbi Jehuda said to him [Rabbi Chezkia]: 'He is to be praised who is able to free himself from the enemies of Israel, and the just are much to be praised who get free from them and fight against them. 'Rabbi Chezkia asked, 'How must we fight against them?' Rabbi Jehuda said, 'By wise counsel thou shalt war against them' (Proverbs, ch. 24, 6). By what kind of war? The kind of war that every son of man must fight against his enemies, which Jacob used against Esau - by deceit and trickery whenever possible. They must be fought against without ceasing, until proper order be restored. Thus it is with satisfaction that I say we should free ourselves from them and rule over them."
Seeseeskeva is offline


Old 10-20-2011, 01:28 PM   #17
Seeseeskeva

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
In Iore Dea (81, 7, Hagah) it says:
"A child must not be nursed by a Nokhri, if an Israelite can be had; for the milk of the Nokhrith hardens the heart of a child and builds up an evil nature in him."
Seeseeskeva is offline


Old 10-21-2011, 02:18 PM   #18
Seeseeskeva

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
In Zohar (1, 25b) it says:
"Those who do good to the Akum . . . will not rise from the dead."
Seeseeskeva is offline


Old 10-21-2011, 05:32 PM   #19
jakitula

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
457
Senior Member
Default
Dr Tamim with all due respect i applaud your intention of starting a thread about Judaism but just copying and pasting quotes without solid references is not really academic a lot of these quotes come from biased websites and i am not saying this to defend Judaism it's not my religion but we should uphold fairness in our discussions.
jakitula is offline


Old 10-22-2011, 02:27 PM   #20
Seeseeskeva

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
419
Senior Member
Default
Dr Tamim with all due respect i applaud your intention of starting a thread about Judaism but just copying and pasting quotes without solid references is not really academic a lot of these quotes come from biased websites and i am not saying this to defend Judaism it's not my religion but we should uphold fairness in our discussions.
akhi.
What is a "solid" reference?
Seeseeskeva is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:41 AM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity